Israel, Iran, and a few truths…

The war of aggression launched by Israel against Iran on June 13, 2025, requires an approach that moves beyond war rhetoric and ideological posturing. At the time of writing, a ceasefire is in effect. But nothing has been resolved. This war has raised a number of important political questions, but our focus here is on nuclear weapons and the logic of power that underpins them.

Putting Israeli policy in a longer-term perspective…

The end of the Oslo Accords ushered in a period in which the use of military force and assertive security policies would dominate and characterize the very essence of Israeli politics to this day. The era of diplomacy, hope, and the illusion of negotiated solutions came to an end. This was not merely the inevitable consequence of the “failure” of what was known as the “peace process.” It was a long-term Israeli strategy to destroy any possibility of continuing the negotiation process. Israeli leaders would impose a completely different path. Ariel Sharon and Benjamin Netanyahu, in particular, would pursue a policy of colonial brutality and overt external aggression. But they were not the only Israeli leaders to embark on a path of total prioritization of force. The United States would also contribute to this, and not only under George W. Bush. During his first term, Donald Trump pushed proactively in the same direction, denying the rights of the Palestinian people, in particular with the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and the Abraham Accords concluded bilaterally between Israel and certain Arab countries (1) with the deliberate omission of any consideration of the Palestinian question.

Israel’s current choices must be understood in this general context, which is obviously much more complex than can be explained here. Let us say it straight away: Netanyahu and his far-right government are not simply an exception of radicalism in Israeli history, but the product, in that history, of a long-standing anti-democratic, ultra-security-oriented, and militarized regression.

Uninhibited use of force, savage colonial repression by the occupying forces, total eviction of the law, exclusion of the Palestinian national reality…It took little time, from the early 2000s onwards, for the contours of a colonial state to emerge, with a strategy of intentional violence and an apartheid system that was gradually enshrined in Israeli law, particularly with the 2018 “Jewish nation-state” law , » which established an institutionalized regime of discrimination. All of this contributed to creating the context for what is happening today.

This overall policy took different forms depending on the circumstances (2), but it has never been fundamentally altered. It was accompanied by a strategy of domination based on the assertion of unchallenged military superiority and political hegemony guaranteed by the unwavering support of Western powers, particularly the United States. France also distinguished itself strongly in this area. Israel thus established itself in the Middle East (and even beyond) as an ultra-dominant technological, military, and security power, based on intelligence capabilities and special and secret operations of the highest level.

Unacceptable and appalling Israeli immunity

The Hamas terrorist attack of a scale rarely seen before, on October 7, 2023, will be used as an opportunity to launch an operation of exceptional scale, not primarily aimed at Hamas and its leaders, but at changing the entire political and social equation in a large-scale bloodbath (3) and widespread devastation: hospitals, schools, universities, social services, homes… Everything will be razed to the ground, including entire cities and territories, while the aim of deporting the

Palestinians and the conditions and intention of genocide will become clear.

Israel is therefore now under threat of conviction by the International Court of Justice for the plausible crime of genocide. And its Prime Minister is the subject of an arrest warrant for war crimes and crimes against humanity. This represents a new high in the criminal charges brought against the regime, or attributable to the state itself. But it is logical that Israel should be the subject of such proceedings when it has behaved for decades, and particularly today, as an actor that attacks the rights and very existence of an entire people, constituting the main threat to international security. The two issues are historically linked.

This catastrophic and deeply damning chapter in Gaza’s history is clearly not over. The tragedy continues, with Israel enjoying unacceptable and appalling immunity from the Western powers, its loyal strategic partners. But without relinquishing its warlike grip on the Palestinians, Israel has turned its attention to successive battles against Lebanon, Yemen, Syria, and then Iran, in order to attack each of Tehran’s proxies in turn, and finally Iran itself. In his televised address on June 13, the evening of the attack on Iran, Benjamin Netanyahu explained his actions: « We have crushed Hamas. We have devastated Hezbollah. We have struck Iran’s proxies in Syria and Yemen » (4). Having thus weakened them (if not destroyed them), the Israeli leaders want to put an end to what they have been calling for decades the Iranian existential threat, the ultimate and main enemy that must be defeated. Some refer to this as “the head of the snake” or “the head of the octopus”… One of the traditional ideological rules of war is to animalize the enemy in order to dehumanize them.

The various forces linked to Iran are often described as an “axis of resistance” part of an Iranian strategy of “proxy war” designed to export the Islamic revolution and expand its influence. This amounts to attributing to them a role that is different from the one they actually play. This network should rather be defined as a disparate set of political forces and armed groups that enable Iran to exert influence in certain conflicts and to keep external threats at bay, outside the territory of the Islamic Republic, in the very classic scheme of security through deterrence, to which most of today’s strategic actors refer.

This network of armed political actors is therefore less a “Shiite axis” than a group of political-military organizations with declared pro-Iranian allegiances. We have seen, for example, how Hezbollah has provided military support to Bashar al-Assad’s regime against a range of opposition groups, Islamist and jihadist formations, and the Kurds. Iran is thus seeking ideological convergence and strategic interests that can serve as protection and a means of action.

The weight of history

Iran has good reasons for acting in this way, given its long history of wars imposed on it and Western hegemonic ambitions in the Middle East. First there were eight years of a particularly bloody war initiated by Iraq, with a massive invasion of Iranian territory and the desire to annex the oil-rich region of Khuzestan. Saddam Hussein wanted to make Iraq the dominant power in the Persian Gulf. To do so, he had to defeat Iran. In this tragic adventure (which left more than a million people dead), Saddam gained the support of the United States, the USSR, Great Britain, France, and the vast majority of Arab countries. In the early 2000s, Iran also had to face the excessive ambitions of George W. Bush for total hegemony in the spirit of a Greater Middle East under US hegemony, from Morocco to Pakistan. This neoconservative project, with its insane financial costs, aimed at nothing less than regime change in a global reshaping, through military supremacy and preventive wars, in the vision of a so-called new world order. All this produced a series of disasters in a complete strategic failure for Washington… The result for the United States, and especially for its citizens, was what is known as “war fatigue.” And this is still being felt today.

Iran experienced this period as a time of very direct threats. But the problem was not that Iran was a highly anti-democratic regime and a threat to international security. This point deserves to be clarified. Since at least the 1990s, Benjamin Netanyahu has tirelessly warned of an immediate Iranian nuclear threat, claiming that Tehran could produce nuclear weapons in a short period of time. In truth, the problem has always been one of power politics and forceful policies as the dominant parameters of the strategies implemented. This was the death knell for diplomacy and international law.

What Israel is seeking today is, first and foremost, a decisive setback or complete defeat for Iran’s strategy, along with that of each of its proxies, regardless of their differences, including the nature and degree of their ties with Tehran. It is this configuration that Israel has sought to meticulously dismantle by force before turning its attention to Iran.

European inconsistency and renunciation

This explanation, of course, cannot be used as a pretext for defending the mullahs’ regime, which the (all too little known) actors of the Iranian progressive movement are seeking to get rid of. We have seen, moreover, the development of huge political and feminist mobilizations against the regime and dictatorship. It is important to understand how, once again, policies of force prevent any stability, accentuate tensions, pave the way for dead ends, and lead to war.

Overall, and in the long term, the Middle East is not emerging from the storms that are fundamentally due to the desire for domination, the refusal to coexist, and so-called national security concepts that produce only the worst. In such a context, the Palestinians have rightly feared a further weakening of European commitment, which was already inconsistent given the exceptional scale of the criminal tragedy unfolding in Gaza and throughout Palestine. The French case is instructive. Emmanuel Macron was, in a way, saved by the war gong, which allowed him to abandon France’s recognition of the State of Palestine without losing too much face publicly. Yet he had announced it with sabers drawn. He then backed down significantly in the face of reluctance in Europe, Saudi uncertainty, and what he saw as the difficulty of finding a collective  » collective dynamic » due to objections raised by the United States in the name of necessary solidarity with Israel. The Israeli offensive of June 13 swept away this project, which went up in smoke… Lacking determination and courage, French diplomacy has succumbed and explicitly joined the (not entirely) general pro-Israeli trend in Europe. The Israeli war is thus revealing hypocrisy and renunciation, as well as spineless behavior and strategic inconsistencies… while the Palestinians, exhausted but resilient, continue to die under the bombs, when they are not dying of organized starvation… or because of the murderous gunfire aimed at them (more than 600 dead as of June 22) as they desperately try to feed themselves in the chaos scandalously organized by Washington and Tel Aviv for so-called emergency humanitarian aid. “Distribution centers are becoming centers of massacre,” says Palestinian journalist Rami Abu Jamous (5).

This strategic and political inconsistency is a kind of collapse that could be dangerously decisive in the context of a confrontation whose stakes touch on major issues: nuclear weapons, the balance of power, the political order, and the future of the Middle East. One cannot play with all this with impunity. Yet all the actors who were involved in this phase of the war, or who chose to support its supposed legitimacy, have danced on a volcano without measuring the risks, or taking all the risks. In particular, the risk of a possible catastrophe with the possibility of uncontrolled escalation, with the potential spread of the conflict to the entire region, with the threat to maritime navigation in the Persian Gulf and on the hydrocarbon route… The risks were and remain considerable.

Do the Israeli authorities really understand the responsibility they have taken on by starting this war, the consequences of which are difficult to imagine? Especially since Benjamin Netanyahu’s rhetoric to justify it left no room for diplomacy. On June 13, Netanyahu officially announced the start of the bombings (6) in terms focused on Israel’s survival. He emphatically expressed the idea that Iran is an existential threat. To support his argument, he recalled the Holocaust perpetrated by the Nazis, asserting that today “the Jewish state refuses to be the victim of a nuclear Holocaust perpetrated by the Iranian regime.” He adds: “As the Bible teaches, when someone comes to kill you, stand up and act first.” He refers to God, Moses, the chosen people…

He could hardly have set the bar higher in ideological, nationalist, and religious terms. It is above all a kind of deliberately quasi-messianic appeal to try to legitimize (in the sense of basing it on identity values) the veracity of an existential threat. This outrageous rhetoric, of course, has little credibility, given that the State of Israel has all the means of security, military, and political domination at its disposal… but it fuels the escalation.

Power and force as fundamental decision-making parameters

On the same day, June 13, the Jerusalem Post published an article by Herb Keinon in a similar vein, referring to history and emphasizing (as is very typical) that Israel had “no other choice” (7). The article explains the importance of a military doctrine of pre-emptive defense (known as the Begin doctrine) based on the belief that waiting for a threat to become imminent could be too late for Israel’s survival. Under this doctrine, Israel is therefore committed to preventing any state considered an enemy from obtaining nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction. In this spirit, the State of Israel must be the only one with nuclear weapons in the Middle East.

The meaning of this choice could not be clearer. The fundamental issue is not limited to nuclear weapons, even if it necessarily includes them. For Israel, the essential goal is the definitive weakening or destruction of the Iranian regime (which Netanyahu is not sure he can achieve). It is also an assertion of unchallenged military and strategic supremacy and political hegemony without any possible rivalry. The logic of power prevails as a fundamental decision-making parameter, ahead of the question of security. There is a reason for this. Power is sovereign and therefore unilateral, while security can only be collective. Israel thus rejects any form of mutual or shared security. The Israeli regime’s obsession is not security in the Middle East, but its own strategic preponderance in military and technological supremacy. Israel is not the only power to think in terms of a global strategy of domination and a bellicose approach to the world.

As for the argument of the existential nuclear threat from Iran, it should be remembered that the State of Israel is itself a true nuclear power with suitable delivery systems and an unspecified number of warheads. Some put the figure at 300, all aimed at Iran. Iran is not at that stage. It does not have nuclear weapons. Its leaders say they do not want them. However, the issue is more complex than that.

Despite Israel’s incessant statements, there is currently no evidence that Tehran wants to acquire such weapons or seek to move beyond its status as a threshold power, which provides it with relative protection, without going so far as to manufacture nuclear weapons. Naturally, the redefinition of Iran’s strategy will depend on the actual outcome of the war and the concrete results of the US and Israeli bombings. It will take time for things to become clearer. And even more time if armed clashes resume.

The fact remains that with the war launched by Tel Aviv and US involvement, Iran’s leaders will have strong reasons not to want to negotiate, to believe that this war would probably not have taken place if Iran already had this weapon, and that it is now necessary to accelerate the process of acquiring nuclear weapons accordingly. But the necessary rationality may dictate a completely different story. It is not over yet.

It should also be noted that in France and other European countries, as early as 2018, i.e. after the US withdrawal from the Vienna Agreement, a project or approach to renegotiate this agreement was put forward, aimed at introducing new, much tougher provisions to keep Iran in check. This project is now resurfacing. Beyond the limits and controls on uranium enrichment, it seeks to impose strong obligations and restrictions on Tehran regarding ballistic weapons (missiles). It also seeks to impose constraints on the “regional issue,” i.e., Iran’s role in the Middle East. This approach clearly seeks to weaken Iran regionally and internationally. It aims to establish a new balance of power. The underlying objective is to establish a kind of unspoken strategic guardianship over Iran. This is something that Tehran has consistently refused.

Nothing has been settled…

In any case, it can be said that Israel will have done a lot to convince the mullahs’ regime, if that were necessary, of the usefulness of nuclear power… The policy of force often leads to the height of irresponsibility. With the US withdrawal from the Vienna Agreement, rendering it obsolete, Iran has continued its nuclear projects outside the control framework defined by this agreement and by the JCPOA (acronym for Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action), which specifies all its terms. Iran can be accused of not complying with the provisions of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which it signed in 1970. But the accusation would be more credible without Washington’s process of undermining the Vienna Agreement concluded in 2015 (which was a heavy responsibility to take on). It would also be more credible without the very real current realities of nuclear proliferation. Indeed, we cannot pretend that the NPT is respected by everyone except Iran, since in reality none of the states possessing nuclear weapons comply with Article 6 of the treaty, which contains a very clear provision obliging each signatory to pursue nuclear disarmament in a spirit of collective responsibility. However, today, all states with nuclear weapons are strengthening and modernizing their arsenals at great expense. It is a nuclear arms race. All states with nuclear weapons are actively participating in it.

What is more, we are seeing a growing number of states that are parties to the NPT considering, in direct contradiction to the treaty, the sharing or transfer of nuclear weapons with other countries. France is pushing for a European dimension to deterrence. Poland is talking about the possibility of a national nuclear program while wanting to participate in NATO’s nuclear missions with American weapons. Russia has reportedly implemented a program to share Russian nuclear weapons installations on Belarusian territory. Even in Japan, the question has been raised.

These possibilities raise multiple and highly complex issues. They are evidence of this dangerous arms race in the nuclear military sphere. It should also be noted that the Third Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) for the 2026 review conference on the implementation of the NPT ended without a final document, highlighting the clear divisions between a majority of states in favor of disarmament and the others. ICAN stresses that “nuclear-armed states have shown a profound lack of urgency… in the face of an increasingly critical situation…” (8). But ICAN also emphasizes in this context that the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TIAN) remains a solid reference point for the disarmament process. The next state to sign the TIAN (perhaps Kyrgyzstan?) will bring the number of signatories to 99, or more than half of the world’s states.


The international context on military nuclear weapons is therefore much more complicated than the repeated media comments on the issue suggest. But in this context, the Israeli-Iranian confrontation is taking on alarming dimensions. Under pressure, Iran could decide to break off all relations with the IAEA and its controls, and withdraw from the NPT. If Iran finally decides to produce nuclear weapons, other states could decide to acquire this weapon themselves. Saudi Arabia is known to want to do so. Turkey could be tempted… Finally, in this war of attrition, in which Israel has targeted all of Iran’s nuclear facilities, no one is safe from a serious accident involving radiation. This possibility is being taken seriously by the IAEA.

Nuclear power : a global issue and a collective responsibility

The problem is therefore not just Iran’s nuclear program. The reason there has been such dangerous strategic tension over this issue for so long is because it crystallizes the balance of power in the Middle East and Israel’s desire to assert itself as the dominant regional power. The first question that arises is therefore not (only) that of nuclear power. It is that of power and domination through threats, force, and the means of force. The so-called existential threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program, as presented by Tel Aviv, is a political and ideological exploitation of strategic realities. It is therefore unacceptable that, in its hubris, Israel, with the support of the United States, should demand that Tehran renounce all nuclear enrichment in order to permanently prevent Iran from accessing the technology that is part of the expression of power. This testifies to Israel’s real aim: the structural and definitive weakening of Iran. It is indeed the question of power that is at stake.

Naturally, Tehran must respect its status as a party to the NPT and clearly renounce access to nuclear weapons. But all signatories must respect this treaty. And this must be done in a regional context that allows for it. Iran cannot be the only state stigmatized for its behavior toward the NPT, when none of the countries with nuclear weapons respect it. International security is necessarily collective. It is also essential to remember that international and regional security, arms control and disarmament are a collective responsibility from which the Israelis cannot forever escape, as if there could be an exception (and for what reason?) in the Middle East. The NPT should therefore be the framework for serious negotiations to finally make it possible to establish a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East. The requirement for collective security based on equality must take precedence. Consequently, in the spirit of the UN Charter, and in a spirit of transparency, Israel must commit to becoming a signatory to the NPT, respecting the constraints defined by this treaty, as should a few other states: India, Pakistan, and South Sudan.

For some experts and politicians, the question now is whether force could succeed where diplomacy has failed… This is a curious way of approaching the issue, since what is most lacking is precisely diplomacy and a genuine desire to achieve a lasting solution through negotiation. What was achieved in this spirit with the Vienna Agreement in 2015 was therefore scuppered by Donald Trump in 2018. This does not prevent him from entertaining a few diplomatic ambitions, provided that they serve his domestic political agenda. Admittedly, what was signed 10 years ago is difficult to replicate today in such a highly conflictual context. It is precisely because the concrete possibility of a multilateral political solution was destroyed yesterday by Washington and Tel Aviv (this was a triggering factor) that we are where we are today. This makes it possible to clarify responsibilities. Israel dreams of putting an end to the Iranian regime and its nuclear program in order to block any assertion of Iranian power with nuclear and strategic force. Unable to achieve parity with Israel, Iran could instead gain a deterrent capability that would prevent Israel from dictating its terms and choices without constraints or limits… From a geopolitical perspective, the issue of power is at the heart of the conflict.

“Changing reality”… by creating chaos.

What has happened since October 7, 2023, clearly demonstrates this. Netanyahu and some of his ministers had warned of this by announcing and repeating: “We are going to change reality” (). It was clear that Israel’s response to the October 7 massacre would not be limited to hunting down Hamas leaders and forces. It was about something else entirely. I wrote in “Israel, Hamas and the Palestinian Question” that Israel’s compass is “the maximum strategic erasure of the Palestinian people as a political subject and actor, as a national consciousness, in order to continue colonization…” (9). In order to change reality and upset all the political equations, the idea was to pursue a policy of uninhibited force in Palestine, but also at the regional level. This is exactly what is happening today. Israel’s war against Iran aims to impose a new balance of power and a new context in the Middle East.

It is too early to say what the results of this excessive ambition will be, based on the support of the United States, the indecent political agreement of the Europeans (with shameful and embarrassing nuances), and the silence or complacency of a majority of Arab countries. How far will this change in international realities by force go? The regional order established after 1979, with the installation of the Ayatollah regime, is in question. The future of the Palestinian people in this chaos of accumulated disasters and inflicted suffering remains hypothetical. Finally, it must be noted that the foundations of principles, law, and values of the international order are also in decline more than ever, as international law and the United Nations Charter have been flouted and trampled underfoot in this major crisis triggered by Israel, a colonial state and apartheid regime that is consequently rejected by a very large majority of UN member states.

Who would dare, without hesitation, to still speak of an international order “based on rules” … since those who created these rules in 1945, and who today would have the power and positive authority (far from it) to enforce them … continue to support the unsustainable and to ignore the law and multilateralism. All this while risking, tomorrow, being accused by international courts of complicity in the worst crimes ever committed, including genocide. It is always in times of great hardship that we recognize heroes… and the wretches of politics.

1) Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, Morocco, and Sudan. Saudi Arabia, before October 7, 2023, was in advanced negotiations to conclude such an agreement with Israel.

2) However, internal opposition is growing stronger and more numerous in Israel, including among military personnel, soldiers, and officers who reject attacks against Palestinians, but also against Iran. See “They are going to jail to end this genocide,” Refuser Solidarity Network, June 22, 2025.

3) 57,000 dead at the time of writing, in reality certainly many more.

4) We are publishing this statement in full as an appendix.

5) See the article by Étienne Monin, FranceInfo, June 17, 2025.

6) It should be noted that Israel’s targets were not only nuclear facilities, which indicates a broader strategy. The choice of targets always has meaning.

7) “Why Israel will always act alone when needed to defend itself,” Herb Keinon, Jerusalem Post, June 13, 2015. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/why-israel-will-always-act-alone-when-needed-to-defend-itself/ar-AA1GDvOT

8) « ICAN and NPT Preparatory Committee for the 2026 Conference of the Parties, May 9, 2025. https://www.icanw.org/no_agreement_at_non_proliferation_treaty_prepcom_tpnw_states_point_way_forward

9) See “Israel, Hamas and the Palestinian Question,” Jacques Fath, Éditions du Croquant, pages 29 and 94.

***

Some prominent figures have raised questions about statements made by Israel and Western countries regarding Iran’s nuclear policy :

“We are not in a position to say that there is a direct link to the manufacture of a nuclear weapon. We cannot say that.”
Rafael Grossi, Director General of the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency)
Interview with Marc Perelman on France 24, June 18, 2025

“We have not found any evidence in Iran indicating that there is an active, systematic plan to build a nuclear weapon.”
Rafael Grossi, Director of the IAEA – Interview with Al Jazeera, June 19, 2025

“Netanyahu insists that Tehran has always intended to cheat to achieve its ultimate goal, which is a nuclear weapons capability. Many experts believe, on the contrary, that the regime had not made the decision to build the bomb. However, it has risen to a dangerous level that places it among the threshold states.”
Barbara Leaf, US diplomat in charge of the Middle East during the Biden administration. In an interview published by L’Express, No. 3859, June 19-25, 2025.

DOCUMENT

Netanyahu: « Operation Rising Lion » to Cripple Iranian Nuclear Program Will Continue For « As Many Days As It Takes » Posted By Tim Hains

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2025/06/13/netanyahu_operation_rising_lion_to_cripple_iranian_nuclear_program_will_continue_for_as_many_days_as_it_takes.html

On Date June 13, 2025 – Full text

« Moments ago, Israel launched Operation Rising Lion, a targeted military operation to roll back the Iranian threat to Israel’s very survival. This operation will continue for as many days as it takes to remove this threat.

For decades, the tyrants of Tehran have brazenly, openly called for Israel’s destruction. They backed up their genocidal rhetoric with a program to develop nuclear weapons. In recent years, Iran has produced enough highly enriched uranium for nine atom bombs. In recent months, Iran has taken steps it has never taken before—steps to weaponize this enriched uranium—and if not stopped, Iran could produce a nuclear weapon in a very short time. It could be a year. It could be within a few months, less than a year. This is a clear and present danger to Israel’s very survival.

Eighty years ago, the Jewish people were the victims of a Holocaust perpetrated by the Nazi regime. Today, the Jewish state refuses to be a victim of a nuclear Holocaust perpetrated by the Iranian regime. As Prime Minister, I’ve made it clear time and again: Israel will never allow those who call for our annihilation to develop the means to achieve that goal. Tonight, Israel backs those words with action.

We struck at the heart of Iran’s nuclear enrichment program. We struck at the heart of Iran’s nuclear weaponization program. We targeted Iran’s main enrichment facility in Natanz. We targeted Iran’s leading nuclear scientists working on the Iranian bomb. We also struck at the heart of Iran’s ballistic missile program. Last year, Iran fired 300 ballistic missiles at Israel. Each of these missiles carries a ton of explosives and threatens the lives of hundreds of people. Soon, those missiles could carry a nuclear payload, threatening the lives not of hundreds but of millions. Iran is gearing up to produce tens of thousands of those ballistic missiles within three years.

Now, just imagine—imagine ten thousand tons of TNT landing on a country the size of New Jersey. This is an intolerable threat. It, too, must be stopped. Iran is now working on what it calls “the new plan” to destroy Israel. You see, the old plan failed. Iran and its proxies tried to encircle Israel with a ring of fire and to attack us with the horrific attack of October 7th, but the people of Israel, the soldiers of Israel, rose like lions to defend our country. We crushed Hamas. We devastated Hezbollah. We hit Iranian proxies in Syria and Yemen. And when Iran directly attacked us twice last year, we struck back inside Iran itself.

Yet in defending ourselves, we also defend others. We defend our Arab neighbors—they, too, have suffered from Iran’s campaign of chaos and carnage. Our actions against Iran’s proxy Hezbollah led to the establishment of a new government in Lebanon and the collapse of Assad’s murderous regime in Syria. The peoples of those two countries now have a chance for a different, better future. So too do the brave people of Iran, and I have a message for them: Our fight is not with you. Our fight is with the brutal dictatorship that has oppressed you for 46 years. I believe that the day of your liberation is near, and when that happens, the great friendship between our two ancient peoples will flourish once again.

I want to assure the civilized world: we will not let the world’s most dangerous regime get the world’s most dangerous weapons. Iran plans to give those weapons—nuclear weapons—to its terrorist proxies; that would make the nightmare of nuclear terrorism all too real. The increasing range of Iran’s ballistic missiles would bring that nuclear nightmare to the cities of Europe and eventually to America.

Remember: Iran calls Israel “the small Satan.” It calls America “the great Satan,” and this is why for decades it’s led millions in chants of “Death to Israel and death to America.” Today, Israel is responding to those genocidal calls with action and with a call of our own: Long live Israel and long live America. Our action will help make the world a much safer place.

I want to thank President Trump for his leadership in confronting Iran’s nuclear weapons program. He has made clear time and again that Iran cannot have a nuclear enrichment program. Today, it is clear that Iran is just buying time; it refuses to agree to this basic requirement of peaceful nations. That is why we have no choice but to act—and act now. The hardest decision any leader has to make is to thwart a danger before it is fully materialized.

Nearly a century ago, facing the Nazis, a generation of leaders failed to act in time. They were paralyzed by the horrors of World War I. They were determined to avoid war at all costs, and they got the worst war ever. They adopted a policy of appeasement. They closed their eyes and ears to all the warning signs. That failure to act resulted in World War II, the deadliest war in history. It claimed the lives of 60 million, including 6 million Jews—a third of my people. After that war, the Jewish people and the Jewish state vowed “Never again.” Well, “Never again” is now. Today, Israel has shown that we have learned the lessons of history. When enemies vow to destroy you, believe them. When enemies build weapons of mass death, stop them. As the Bible teaches us, “When someone comes to kill you, rise and act first.” This is exactly what Israel has done today: we have risen like lions to defend ourselves.

Over 3,000 years ago, Moses gave the people of Israel a message that has steeled our resolve ever since: “Be strong and courageous,” he said. Today, our strong and courageous soldiers and people stand together to defend ourselves against those who seek our destruction. By defending ourselves, we defend many others, and we roll back a murderous tyranny. Generations from now, history will record that our generation stood its ground, acted in time, and secured our common future.

May God bless Israel.

May God bless the forces of civilization everywhere »